A Multidimensional Experiential Learning Course Mary Wiedenhoeft,* Steve Simmons, Ricardo Salvador, Gina Mcandrews, Charles Francis, James King, and David Hole

Agroecosystems Analysis from the Grass Roots: A Multidimensional Experiential Learning Course Mary Wiedenhoeft,* Steve Simmons, Ricardo Salvador, Gina McAndrews, Charles Francis, James King, and David Hole

ABSTRACT hensive analysis of the agroecosystems designed by students themselves in this community learning experience. An intensive, experiential travel course in Agroecosystems Analysis was conducted in Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska dur- Educators have long understood the fundamental impor- ing summers of 1998 and 1999. The intended student audience tance of experience for fostering learning in adults (Dewey, was advanced undergraduate and beginning graduate students. 1938; Lindeman, 1961). In fact, all learning, even in a con- Pretravel readings and a week-long series of farm visits, which ventional classroom and lecture format, involves some kind consisted of in-depth interviews with the farmers and their fam- of experience. We recognize that not all experiences educate ilies, prepared student teams to analyze and evaluate the pro- well. In fact, some experiences may miseducate by distorting duction, economic, environmental, and social sustainability of 10 a student’s perspective or closing them to further experiences farms. Students shared their analyses both orally and in written that would be beneficial (Merriam and Caffarella, 1999). But reports. Based on a multifaceted student evaluation process, we for the most part, adults accumulate an ever-increasing array found that participants were highly motivated, strongly engaged of experiences upon which they base further learning, an idea with the course content and learning activities, and committed that is consistent with a constructivist view of education. to learn from the interviews and group learning processes. They Students within typical agriculture and natural resources reported that this multidimensional learning experience was more valuable than other traditional courses at their home cam- programs in U.S. universities have widely varying experi- puses. Faculty learned how to: (i) allow students the opportunity ences upon which to base their learning. However, within a to assist in developing the learning environment and community; multidimensional topic such as agroecosystems analysis, (ii) design an optimum travel schedule to permit adequate time many students are limited by a lack of prior experience through for individual reflection and group process; (iii) deal with chal- which to construct meaning. Thus, it seemed most logical to lenges in the small group setting; and (iv) design a useful multi- us to have students approach this topic through an experience- phased learning evaluation process. Based on this experience, fac- rich, immersion venue. We developed a field- based course de- ulty in Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska are highly motivated to signed to introduce students to the analysis of agroecosystems continue this course and expand the opportunities for experien- using the experience–critical reflection–personal change ed- tial learning. ucational model characteristic of transformational learning (Mezirow, 1991; Merriam and Caffarella, 1999). Our goal was to guide students to develop their own understanding of agroe- GROECOSYSTEMS ANALYSIS is a three-state collaborative cosystems in a deeper and more comprehensive way. Afield course that was initiated through the North Central Field-based courses in agriculture and natural resources are Institute for Sustainable Systems (NCISS). This course utilizes not new. Many undergraduate programs offer field trips and visits to farms and other sites of significance, coupled with stu- other short-term experiences within their curricula to introduce dents’ reflections and analytical assessments of these farms students to farm operations and farming practices in situ. and sites. The course is for seniors and beginning graduate stu- However, these students seldom are given incentives or time dents and involves directed readings, a 1-wk immersion study tour of farms and sites, and group reflection and study activ- to develop a thorough, systematic, and reflective perspective ities. Small groups of students analyze and evaluate the pro- of agroecosystems within a region. Our course was designed duction, economic, environmental, and social aspects of farms to immerse students over the period of a week to share mul- in the study area. However, the analysis does not end there. tiple experiences on a number of farms within our shared ge- The overall outcome of in-depth discussions, oral and written ographical region, interviewing farmers, as well as visiting presentations, and reflections results in an emergent compre- other social, historical, or ecological sites of importance for understanding natural resource and social context. The un- M.H. Wiedenhoeft, R. Salvador, and G. McAndrews, Dep. of Agronomy, Iowa derlying criterion or foundation we chose to assess across all State Univ., Ames, IA 50011; S. Simmons, Dep. of Agronomy and Plant Ge- of these agroecosystems was their sustainability. netics, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108; C. Francis, Dep. of Agron- Although it would seem intuitive, one of the principle chal- omy and Horticulture, 225 Keim Hall, Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915; J. King, Dep. of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Com- lenges in executing a course such as ours is to make learning munications, 300 Agricultural Hall, Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583- the primary objective (Davis, 1993). With field courses, one 0709; and D. Hole, Plants, Soils, and Biometeorology Dep., 4820 Old Main must develop a discipline that ensures intellectual engagement Hill, Utah State Univ., Logan, UT 84322-4820. This work was supported in and reflection that assures that learners do not get lost in the part by a USDA Challenge Grant (no. 95384112511). Published as College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Journal Series no. 02-1, Univ. richness of the experiences. Providing adequate opportunities of Nebraska-Lincoln. *Corresponding author ([email protected]). and structures for preflection (Falk, 1995) and reflection before, during, and after the field experiences is one way to ap- Published in J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. 32:73–79 (2003). proach this challenge (Merriam and Caffarella, 1999). The http://www.JNRLSE.org © American Society of Agronomy course builds on a foundation established for modular courses 677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA in the Nordic Region (Lieblein et al., 1999).

J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 32, 2003 • 73 Table 1. Resource materials provided to students before course and oth- environmental, and social characteristics of different farms; ers made available on arrival to start the course. (iv) develop skills appropriate to small group processes and 1.1 References provided ahead of course practice these skills in analyzing and evaluating the farm in- Cavigelli, M.A., S.R. Deming, L.K. Probyn, and R.R. Harwood (ed.). 1998. Michigan terview information; (v) integrate and understand the multi- field crop ecology: Managing biological processes for productivity and environ- ple goals of farm families and explore how these are being mental quality. Michigan State Univ. Ext. Bull. E-2646. Coughlan, B. 1992. Group decision-making techniques for natural resource manage- achieved; and (vi) practice oral and written communication ment applications. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publ. 185. U.S. Depart- skills in presenting results of farm analysis. ment of the Interior, Washington DC. Huyck, L., and C. Francis. 1995. Designing a diversified landscape. Ch. 5 In R. Olson Background reading material was provided by each faculty et al. (ed.) Exploring the role of diversity in sustainable agriculture. ASA, Madi- member based on their experience with prior agroecology son, WI. courses, relevance to systems thinking and farming systems Olson, R. 1995. Diversity in agricultural landscapes. Ch. 6 In R. Olson et al. (ed.) Ex- ploring the role of diversity in sustainable agriculture. ASA, Madison, WI. design, and emphasis on multiple dimensions of farm func- 1.2 References given to students on arrival tions and criteria for evaluation. Some articles and chapters were mailed to students at least 1 mo before the course. Ad- Anonymous. 1880. The bonanza farms of the west. Atlantic Monthly. January, p. 33–45. ditional materials were provided on site. Each faculty mem- Conway, G. 1990. Concepts. Ch. 2 In Agroecosystem analysis for research and con- ber brought a mini-collection of personal books to create a cepts. Winrock Int. Inst. for Agriculture, Morrilton, AR. Francis, C., and J. King. 1997. Impact of personal values on agricultural research. temporary, on-site library that provided students with refer- Soc. Nat. Resour. 10:273–282. ences on sustainable practices, alternative farming systems de- Francis, C., and R. Olson. 1995. Diversity from micro to global: Overview and con- sign, and multicriteria evaluation methods. A partial list of clusions. Ch. 9 In R. Olson et al. (ed.) Exploring the role of diversity in sustainable agriculture. ASA, Madison, WI. these resources is given in Table 1. Hegyes, G., and C. A. Francis (ed.). 1997. Future horizons: Recent literature in sus- Criteria for choice of farms were established by faculty be- tainable agriculture. Extension and education materials for sustainable agriculture. Vol. 6. Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Inst. of Agriculture and fore the start of the first course. We chose farms in a three-state Natural Resources, Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE. area based on diversity in size of operation, potential to pro- Leopold A. 1993. The farmer as conservationist. In A. Leopold et al. (ed.) The river vide a cross-section of farms typical to the region, and goals of the mother of God; and other essays. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Olson, R. 1998. Procedures for evaluating alternative farming systems: A case study of the farm families. The farms selected represented differing for eastern Nebraska. Extension and education materials for sustainable agricul- agroecosystems, landscapes, soil types, and topography. They ture. Vol. 8. Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Inst. of Agriculture and also varied in distance to markets and marketing strategies. A Natural Resources, Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE. Olson, R., and L. Bauer (ed.). 1999. Small farming systems for the Midwest and rein- disproportionate number of diversified, mixed farming oper- tegrating agriculture and community in the Midwest. Extension and Education ations were chosen to make comparisons more meaningful. At materials for sustainable agriculture. Vol. 10. Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Inst. of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, least two large and predominantly conventional corn–soy- NE. bean [Zea mays L.–Glycine max (L.) Merr.] farms, repre- Olson, R., and C. Francis. 1995. A hierarchical framework for evaluating diversity in senting the norm for the region, were selected each year. agroecosystems. Ch. 1 In R. Olson et al. (ed.) Exploring the role of diversity in sustainable agriculture. ASA, Madison, WI. Local extension educators and personnel from farmer-based Simmons, S.R. 1998. A perspective on landscape perspectives. Unpublished, 3 p. organizations provided advice and assistance on locating in- Tester, J.R. 1995. Geologic history. p. 7–26. In Minnesota’s natural heritage. Univ. of teresting and accessible farms, and contacting farmers who Minnesota Press, Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN. were open and articulate in describing their operations. In- cluding farmers who would readily engage the students dur- This paper summarizes our experiences over 2 yr (1998 and ing interviews and other times of interaction was important. 1999) in offering an interinstitutional field course focused on Whenever possible, we encouraged farmers to include other agroecosystems analysis for undergraduate and beginning participating family members in the interview and visit. graduate students. Our purpose is to describe the course ob- In a series of conference calls, the faculty discussed jectives, the specific elements of the course, and especially the prospective farms and how they would fit into a 1-wk sched- approaches used to foster preflection and reflection, active ule. Faculty in each state contacted farmers in their state and learning, and team research, while highlighting student re- confirmed the schedule. Farmers received a modest honorar- sponses, outcomes, and our conclusions. Methods are given ium, an important feature, for hosting the class, since the in detail because these may be useful to others planning short farmers served as the essential instructors for this course. Be- courses. We trust that others who undertake field-based edu- fore the course, faculty contacted the farmers and discussed cational ventures in agriculture, regardless of their disciplinary the broad goals for the course and the visit to their farms. Hav- context, will find our experiences and conclusions helpful. ing visits that were not scripted beforehand was important and students were the ones who directed the questions to the farm- METHODS ers. However, farmers were told the kinds of questions that would likely be asked by the students during the interviews. Course objectives for Agroecosystems Analysis were to Student recruitment was promoted by posting course ob- provide students with a first- hand, practical field experience jectives and schedule on university bulletin boards and on the with farms in the Midwest and with an opportunity to develop North Central Institute for Sustainable Systems website, as and execute an analytical construct for comparing farms and well as through announcements in key classes during the other elements of representative agroecosystems in our region. spring semester. Most successful were individual discussions Specific outcomes for students who completed this course with interested students by faculty in each state. Advertising were to: (i) develop criteria for farm comparisons and for a was primarily in agronomy courses, although students were strategy to collect needed information; (ii) conduct interviews attracted from other majors including general agriculture, and make observations to collect relevant information during horticulture, natural resources, environmental science, agri- farm visits; (iii) compare and contrast production, economic, cultural economics, and anthropology. One or more students

74 • J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 32, 2003 each year came from a private college in Minnesota, as well Table 2. General schedule of daily activities for Agroecosystems Analy- as the land-grant universities. In both years, the course in- sis course, 1998 and 1999. cluded a balance between advanced undergraduates and be- Day 1: 1600 h (4 p.m.) Course introduction, community building, informa- ginning graduate students. For the second year (1999), testi- tion resources, initial student team meetings monials and evaluation comments from first-year (1998) Day 2: 0800 h (8 a.m.) First day of farm visits, cultural activities, recap of visits evening Student team meetings, refining interview questions course participants were useful in the recruiting process. Day 3: morning Free time for church, reflection, reading Creating student teams of three or four students was done afternoon Cultural activities by faculty using background information about the students, Day 4: 0800 h (8 a.m.) Second day of farm visits, review of interview results plus their initial biographical presentations. Diverse teams evening Student team meetings, analysis and evaluation of were established with regard to gender, home university, results major, and year in school. We included five teams, one each Day 5: 0800 h (8 a.m.) Third day of farm visits, review of results and process evening Student team meetings, evaluation and summary of assigned to the broad themes of production, economics, en- results vironmental impacts, landscape integration, and social issues. Day 6: 0800 h (8 a.m.) Fourth day of farm visits, review and synthesis of results A faculty advisor worked with each team, although all faculty evening Student team meetings, summary of results, planning were available to every team when their respective specialties presentations were needed. Facilitators provided initial guidance to the Day 7: 0800 h (8 a.m.) Final farm and experiment station visits, synthesis of teams, and from the start helped establish ownership and de- results afternoon Student presentations, planning for written report cision-making on the part of the students. Day 8: 0800 h (8 a.m.) Review and evaluation of presentations and course Course format during the 8 d began with students and fac- Student team meetings to outline and plan written report ulty assembled the first afternoon to discuss course goals and logistical arrangements (Table 2). Initial hours were spent in of-week presentations. Faculty used such times to ask ques- developing a learning community. Each student and faculty tions, probe students’ perceptions and analysis of prior visits, member prepared a personal biography on site using large (60 and clarify doubts about farming systems, practices, and man- by 80 cm) flip chart paper and colored markers. Some biog- agement. Faculty also used the time to read the sentiments of raphies were chronological outlines of life experiences, lists the group, assess learning, and contribute to the overall eval- of activities in academia, and personal experiences relevant to uation of the course. the course. In 1- to 2-min presentations, students introduced In the evenings, we engaged students in a large group de- themselves to the course’s learning community, described briefing session about the day’s visits. As the week progressed what experiences and resources they brought to the course, and the student teams met in the evenings to consolidate infor- summarized their expectations. This exercise was used to mation from the farm visits, refine their questions for subse- build rapport in a group generally unfamiliar with each other, quent interviews, and establish criteria for cross-farm analy- to validate each student’s prior experience and academic sis and evaluation. Toward the end of the week, they planned preparation, as well as to establish the faculty and students as for their final presentations and began to write component sec- co- learners in the course. This exercise begins the process of tions of their written team reports. Facilitators attended the creating a safe learning environment to assist students and fac- early group meetings to assure that the learning process was ulty in finding comfort zones within and between teams. A progressing, and then prompted leadership to emerge so that guarded initial learning environment is critical to promoting students could set their own agendas and proceed on their own education risk taken later in the process (Woods, 2001). A schedules. Faculty were available to all teams as consultants shared meal was followed by a team-building exercise in in their areas of expertise, and to contribute to the group which each team planned and assembled a tower built of process when needed. newspaper, masking tape, and string, using their own coop- Preparations for the final presentation became more intense erative designs developed without any verbal communica- as the scheduled time approached. Student teams worked late tion. This exercise proved to be an engaging and highly sym- into the evenings as they consolidated their observations, de- bolic one for helping students to understand the fundamental cided on key criteria for evaluation, and planned the format collaborative learning nature of the course. After debriefing for their presentations. We urged teams to make their oral re- the tower-building exercise, the faculty outlined the course ports highly participatory for the entire community, to find schedule and activities. Student teams and facilitators met to ways to gather additional information and insight from other begin designing interview questions in their respective di- teams, and to use the hour-long presentation as one way to test mensions of the farm analysis. their ideas and gain additional perspectives on their interpre- Each day the group visited two or three farms (or other sig- tations of the farms. They were provided with overhead trans- nificant sites). On average, travel time was about 90 min be- parencies, flip chart paper, markers, and access to computer tween sites. A significant problem during the first year of the presentation software if needed. Creativity and participatory course was overbooking the days with too many site visits. learning were both strongly encouraged. Time and low student energy in such situations limited the ca- A closing session was used to summarize the week’s learn- pability to adequately debrief and reflect upon the visits. Stu- ing activities, provide feedback on the oral presentations, and dents did use travel time to develop camaraderie, discuss pre- answer questions about the written report to be developed by vious farm visits, refine the process for interviews, clarify new each team. For this report, students were instructed to cover terms or questions from a previous visit—or sleep. Fatigue was aspects of sustainability, not just their own area for the oral definitely a factor as the week progressed, especially in the first presentation, and were given 1 mo to interact with others in year. Later in the week, student teams often chose to ride to- the group and share report drafts electronically to develop the gether to consolidate information and to work on their end- final report.

J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 32, 2003 • 75 Nonfarm sites and topics were included each year to build derstanding of the teams’ functioning and gave them infor- student understanding of the ecological and cultural context mation for evaluating individual contributions to the team in which the farms operate. Native prairie remnants were product. It allowed faculty a chance to intervene when needed toured to acquaint students with the flora and fauna of the re- to redirect or improve the learning environment. Knowing that gion, plus an appreciation of structure and function of the students learn in different ways, this multidimensional eval- prairie. A soils specialist familiar with geological and agri- uation method provided a useful opportunity to assess learn- cultural history used several field sites to describe and demon- ing and to fine-tune the process. strate the impacts of glaciers on soil formation. A state park with American Indian prehistoric petroglyphs provided an un- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION derstanding of the original inhabitants’ perspectives on the re- Experiential learning was assessed using the several meth- gion’s landscape. A visit to Laura Ingalls Wilder’s family ods described above. On the first day, students were asked homestead near Walnut Grove, MN, provided a link to early about their individual learning styles. Predominant among settlement, while connecting with some of the students’ child- the responses were statements about the importance of expe- hood readings of On the Banks of Plum Creek, Little House riencing things first-hand in the context of the farm and of on the Prairie, and other books by Wilder. Visits to these sites gaining information in a real world context directly from helped complement the historical background provided by the farmers. They appreciated seeing practical examples that il- farmers during their interviews about their own specific farms. lustrated farming principles, and observing the application of One of the readings considered the account of a journalist’s strategies and practices on the farms themselves. Students visit to southwestern Minnesota in the 1880s during the era noted the importance of multiple types of stimuli and expla- of the extensive bonanza farms, which existed in the area of nation, and the value of using all their senses—seeing, hear- one of the farms visited. This helped students understand that ing, feeling, touching, and smelling. Some students men- the issue of farm size in agriculture is not a new one. tioned the desirability of lectures; however, the majority fa- Two different travel approaches were used in the 2 yr of the vored experiential learning on farms and in their teams. We course. In 1998, the group stayed at local motels in different concluded from the final course evaluations that the course for- towns each night to reduce travel time between farm sites. The mat met most of the students’ expectations, and many were final presentations were given a meeting room of a restaurant surprised at the intensity of the learning process. One student in Sioux City, IA. In 1999, students and faculty were based wrote: throughout the week at the Iowa Lakeside Laboratory (a field station owned by Iowa Board of Regents) and returned there I’ve learned more in one week visiting farms and working each night after the day’s farm visits. The 1999 model proved in small groups than I learn in a whole semester on cam- to be a simpler, less expensive, and logistically more effective pus. way of offering the course. Keeping the course on the move, The principal negative comments related to the travel sched- as was done in 1998, the need to unpack and pack each day, ule and lack of time to reflect. to check into and out of motels, and to always have to seek Students described the importance of standing and ob- ways to get teams together each night in a new setting was serving in the landscape, immersed in a farm context, for un- counter productive. The facilities for the final presentations derstanding how the agroecosystems worked. Sensing the were also much better at the Lakeside Laboratory in 1999, than challenges of farming in the field while talking with farmers at the restaurant in 1998. A base camp gave students a famil- expanded their worldviews. They saw a farm as a part of the iar place to meet and work, consistent access to reference ma- watershed, the farmer as a component of their neighborhood terials, and more free time to reflect and explore the site. and community, and agriculture as a feature of a landscape or Evaluation of learning was an ongoing and integral part of agroecozone. Evaluation comments revealed that this course the course environment. This was more informal in 1998, was different because of more discovery learning with em- and more structured in 1999. An initial one-page questionnaire phasis on the experience and its interpretation, rather than on asked students about their backgrounds, expectations, and textbooks and lectures. Students found themselves engaged learning styles. Each day a one-page survey was used to as- with complex problems and seeking alternative solutions sess what students had observed on the farms and their per- using different criteria and types of analysis and evaluation of ceptions of the individual and group learning process. Results options. Participants viewed the course as more practical than of these daily evaluations were summarized by one of the in- lectures. Students described how they used observations and structors for the group each day. Faculty facilitators also pro- knowledge to describe and solve problems rather than merely vided feedback to individuals and teams on a continuing basis. memorizing facts. Overall, the evaluation of experiential learn- Faculty met with individuals/teams as requested or needed to ing was highly positive. answer questions and provide guidance. These structured Learning in a social environment was described by John- methods supplemented the faculty observations of students’ son et al. (1998) as distinct from the one-way deliveries in engagement and behavior during farm visits and group activ- many lectures. In the conventional classroom, competition ities. The final questionnaire was a paired interview where stu- often replaces collaboration. Few meaningful relationships, if dents asked each other questions and recorded their partner’s any, develop among students. In many conventional class- responses. rooms, the single instructor is seen as distant from students, Faculty met each evening to share their observations and conducting business but not actively learning. The format in comments from students, which provided another window on this course resulted in more personal relationships among learning through evaluation of the students’ and the course’s students and between students and faculty. One student com- progress. This emphasis on evaluation gave faculty a good un- mented:

76 • J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 32, 2003 When you live, eat, and spend all day in a van, you really not to provide the right answers, a substantial transfer of own- get to know your classmates. ership to the students occurred. We insisted that student teams In both years, students and faculty sometimes gathered develop their own interview questions and strategies, and de- for extemporaneous folk singing sessions after the day’s busi- cide on the most important indicators of sustainability. Stu- ness was accomplished. Such camaraderie is seldom possible dents and small teams defined the broad agenda for meeting within the conventional construct of campus-based courses. the course goals, within the logistical framework and sched- Because the course was offered off-campus, and 4 to 8 h from ule the faculty had organized. Even this schedule became any of the collaborating universities, students could not rely more flexible toward the end of the week when farm visits on familiarity with the site nor distractions of peers. By as- were completed and group work intensified before the pre- signing roommates and team members across universities, stu- sentations. We provided not only space for reflection, but dents were urged to develop new relationships with new class- also some flexibility for students to set the agenda on how time mates that they might otherwise not have known. Students also was invested. Because of the time constraints, group work fre- valued the opportunity to have more one-on-one time with pro- quently extended late into evenings as teams struggled to syn- fessors, moving beyond knowing them as authorities. A stu- thesize information for the presentations. The obligation of dent remarked: each team member was to contribute to the final product. This strategy appeared to stimulate most individuals and stu- I’ve never worked with faculty before who seriously saw dent motivation was tangible. themselves as co-learners with us, not experts who already knew the answers. We were searching and learning together Students may best learn when they teach concepts to their about complexity on the farms. peers (Beidler, 1980). Seeing group members who had knowledge in different areas teaching one another was gratifying. Team learning was a part of the social learning environment This expanded the information exchange for the recipient, re- enhanced by the group projects. One student described the dif- inforced the concept, and increased confidence for the pre- ferences between the conventional learning method of lecture senter. and the group learning method: Faculty motivation was also high, although planning a In lecture, a student is bombarded with facts and figures team-taught course was both exhilarating and frustrating. and writes them down. Team learning allows us to have Each individual took responsibility for different parts of the many conversations to discuss multiple options, share planning, while remaining sensitive to collaborative aspects ideas, and develop new ideas together. This is one way for of the process. After the long planning period and opportunity students to work through ideas not fully understood. to work together under a range of circumstances, a strong level Students felt they learned better by verbalizing an idea or of trust emerged among the instructors and a sincere belief that having to explain it to peers. Several students commented that everyone brought unique qualities and skills to the course. team members were likely to contribute because in a group of Emerging from the process was a willingness to give up time- peers they perceive less anxiety, less competition, and less fear honored teaching practices when someone on the team had a of being judged by the professor. This format allowed students better idea to enhance learning. Each instructor was willing more freedom to learn. to volunteer to accept responsibilities in their areas of strength, Motivation for learning in students and faculty was main- and to encourage each other to expand their knowledge and tained at a high level, especially during the intensive week dur- capabilities from new information and new experiences. ing the course and the month-long period of final written re- With a sincere conviction that students are the center of cre- port preparation. We observed a strong engagement with the ating the learning environment, as well as in changing the role material, healthy debate about farmer goals, and enthusiastic of professor from the sage on the stage to a guide on the side, grappling with the complex issues surrounding decisions by the entire faculty could comfortably assume this new role as farmers to pursue diverse strategies. The first-hand experience facilitators, co-learners, and resource people. Both students on a farm is unique and seems impossible to capture in the and faculty were motivated by this approach to learning. One classroom for all students. Part of the answer may be involv- student commented: ing multiple senses and being immersed in the context of It was really exciting to see the professors eager to learn, real-world challenges. The students’ view about how and taking notes, to see them struggle with difficult issues, where education can occur was broadened with meeting farm- and to be working late at night to help make the course ers and families on their home turf, recognizing them as im- better. portant resource people and validating them as co-instructors in the course. Seeing university professors in a learning mode Physical fatigue due to an overzealous schedule became an was also a motivator as students realized that all of us placed issue both years. Consequently, not everything is always pos- high value on what farm families had to offer as teachers. itive in this kind of learning environment. The schedule was Students trusted the information received from farmers too full the first year, which was exacerbated by the daily and their families. While students viewed the course instruc- changes in the living environment. Students and faculty stayed tors as experts because of their training and academic posi- in six different motels over the 8-d period of the course. An tions, the farmers and their spouses and children had ready overly intense schedule is particularly difficult for those stu- credibility dents who require more time to synthesize and process new Clearly placing responsibility for learning on the students material or those students with less agricultural background. was another motivating factor. When students became con- Additionally, some students needed time to learn or work in- vinced that the faculty were there to facilitate the process, but dividually before coming to the group. Limited time did not

J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 32, 2003 • 77 allow many students to digest information or sufficiently de- in a manner that is not possible in a large lecture course. We brief with faculty. found this a highly valuable learning experience, both in terms This problem was partially solved in the second year by es- of course content and an opportunity to develop personal tablishing the base camp approach at Lakeside Laboratory, a friendships within the instructor team. facility with excellent space for meals, small group work, Costs of this course are high on a per-student credit-hour and large group meetings and an on-site library. Travel time basis. With multiple instructors (five each year) who are en- to sites was extended somewhat each day, but students quickly gaged in the course for the entire week, this is a large invest- adapted to this schedule and used the travel time for synthe- ment for a course that includes 15 to 20 students. The stu- sis and group planning. A lack of enough individual time for dent/professor ratio is low and desirable, and comparable to thought and reflection, additional reading, or keeping a jour- advanced seminars or tutorial situations on campus. Grant nal is still a concern. Students also wanted more time for de- funds allowed us to cover all transportation, housing, and briefing and reflection with the entire learning community to teaching materials costs, plus a few community meals. The in- help clarify what was being experienced by others during the structors’ travel costs were paid, as well as honoraria to each visits each day, to communicate suggestions for modifying the farmer visited. The cost of lodging and food depended on the process or schedule, and to making sure logistical details facilities. The facilities at Lakeside Laboratory included lodg- were clear. ing, a large meeting room, a classroom for oral presentations, Dysfunctional teams were a challenge at times. Although and a kitchen, which allowed individuals to prepare many of most students spoke highly of the experience with their team, their own meals. Long-term sustainability of the course would one team each year did not function as well as the instructors require each student to pay a laboratory fee of about $150 to had hoped. In one case the conflict was due to a disagreement cover expenses for a course of this type, not including in- about the approach to use and an unwillingness to compro- structor time. The higher costs of this type of learning expe- mise, while in the other team it was domination by one male rience seem to be justified by the opportunities it creates for team member and his unwillingness to listen and share own- truly transformational learning. ership with two female colleagues. We encouraged teams to work out their problems and find solutions to these types of CONCLUSIONS challenges, as we considered this part of the learning experience. Students will likely work in teams in future job situa- This intensive, experiential summer course in agroecosys- tions and conflicts will arise that they must solve. When tems analysis has proven to be a valuable learning experience needed, instructors did counsel individual students, as well as for seniors and beginning graduate students, as well as for in- meet with the team as a whole to help provide guidance or to structors. After 2 yr of offering the course, we have modified facilitate solutions to organizational or communication prob- the content and schedule according to lessons learned. We con- lems. clude that this is a useful model for learning about agroe- Multiple instructors in the course had both positive and cosystems that would likely work well for other subjects and negative aspects. Students found it rewarding to have in- disciplines. structors with different expertise and to have an instructor who In course design, it is essential to start with clear course ob- was assigned and readily available to each group. However, jectives and to identify the farm visits and design small group leadership in such multiple instructor situations can be diffi- work to meet those goals. Background readings prepare stu- cult. Miscommunication or lack of communication about dents for the field experience, provide a foundation in practi- schedules and other logistical aspects of the course could lead cal farming systems, and broaden the knowledge of students to frustrations among the faculty team. We were fortunate to with less practical experience in this area, which in turn allows encounter little disagreement over the fundamental approaches them to evaluate systems more rigorously. Farms are chosen that were used in the course. If disagreement on some aspect that represent diversity in crops, farming systems, and man- of instruction or administration of a course such as this one agement strategies in the region, with a bias toward smaller, arises, it is critical that instructors: diversified family farms. The 8-d course format includes visits to 10 farms that provide a range in philosophies, farm size, 1. Develop their own positive group dynamics; each member enterprises, and marketing methods, as well as richness to the needs to feel comfortable to share ideas and to disagree, and activity of analyzing across farms. Teams of students evalu- confident in their role in the course. Long-distance com- ate the farms using production, economic, environmental, munication alone may make it difficult for people who de- and social criteria that contribute to the farms’ long-term sus- sire face-to-face relational interactions, and every effort tainability. should be made to meet in person when needed before of- We learned from the 2 yr that students appreciate the di- fering a course such as this one. rect interviews with farmers in the context of the farm, and that 2. Agree on learning objectives and have a willingness to ne- engaging their multiple senses enhances the learning experi- gotiate on learning methods and the roles each person will ence. The opportunity to design their own criteria for evalu- play in facilitating learning. ation and their analysis/evaluation across farms was a valuable 3. Spend considerable time in preparation for the course and approach to developing confidence and creativity. Preparing complete agreed-upon tasks in a timely manner. and presenting both oral and written team reports was an ex- 4. Review and agree on the framework of schedule and exercise in group dynamics, as well as a chance to confront a pectations at the beginning of each day. complex task in the real world and immerse in that activity to The diversity of instructors should be recognized as a real find solutions. We are convinced that experiential learning strength of the course and an opportunity to engage all students greatly enhances student learning.

78 • J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 32, 2003 Use of multiple instructors adds richness to the student ex- REFERENCES perience, and the format of travel, group work, and constant Beidler, P. 1980. A turn down the harbor. J. Exp. Educ. 3(2):24–32. interaction builds camaraderie in the learning community that Davis, B.G. 1993. Tools for teaching. Jossey-Bass Publ., San Francisco, CA. rarely occurs on campus. Given this intensive faculty in- Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and education. Collier Books, New York. volvement, the course is less cost effective than large lectures, Falk, D. 1995. Preflection. A strategy for enhancing reflection. NSEE Quar- terly, 13 (Winter). but comparable to an advanced seminar course. In addition to Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson, and K.A. Smith. 1998. Active learning: Co- tuition, a course fee of $150 per student would be necessary operation in the college classroom. Interaction Book Co., Edina, MN. to make the course sustainable. Based on student feedback and Lieblein, G., C.A. Francis, L. Salomonsson, and N. Sriskandarajah. 1999. Eco- a high level of motivation among the involved faculty, we con- logical agriculture research: Increasing competence through PhD courses. clude that this experiential approach to learning is a valuable J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 6(1):31–46. Lindeman, E. 1961. The meaning of adult education. Harvest House, New model that should be integral to a number of agriculture and York. ecology courses in the university. The course is ongoing and Merriam, S.B., and R.S. Caffarella. 1999. Learning in adulthood: A com- dynamic with further assessments of the learning process prehensive guide. Jossey-Bass Publ., San Francisco, CA. being undertaken. Longer-term retrospective evaluations of Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass Publ., San Francisco, CA. alumni of the various classes is needed and we anticipate un- Woods, M. 2001. The shepherd as instructor: Engaging students in the ex- dertaking such assessments in future studies. periential education process. Agricultural Education Magazine 73:16–17.

J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 32, 2003 • 79